"Get rich, or die trying": Lessons from Rambus' high-risk predatory litigation in the semiconductor industry

Industry and Innovation

Volumn 12, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 93-115

  Tansey, Richard ^a   Neal, Mark ^b   Carroll, Ray ^c  

^a TEXAS A M INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b SULTAN QABOOS UNIVERSITY   (Oman)

^c DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Patent litigation; Rambus; Semiconductor industry

Indexed keywords

INNOVATION; INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS; SEMICONDUCTOR INDUSTRY; TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT;

NORTH AMERICA; UNITED STATES; WESTERN HEMISPHERE; WORLD;

EID: 15744394894     PISSN: 13662716     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/1366271042000339076     Document Type: Article

References (67)

1. Alban, D. (2004) Rambus v. Infineon: patent disclosures in standard-setting organizations, Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 19(1), pp. 309-331.
2. Assimakopoulos, D., Everton, S. and Tsutsui, K. (2003) The semiconductor community in the Silicon Valley: a network analysis of the semi genealogy chart, 1947-1986, International Journal of Technology Management, 25(1/2), pp. 181-199.
3. Besen, S. M. and Raskind, L. J. (1991) An introduction to the law and economics of intellectual property, Journal of Economic Perspectives 5(1), pp. 3-27.
4. Bettis, R. A. and Prahalad, C. K. (1995) The dominant logic: retrospective and extension, Strategic Management Journal, 16(1), pp. 5-14.
5. Chesbrough, H. (2003) The logic of open innovation: managing intellectual capital, California Management Review, 45(3), pp. 33-58.
6. Chesbrough, H. and Rosenbloom, R. S. (2002) The role of the business model in capturing value from innovation: evidence from Xerox Corporation's technology spin-off companies, Industrial and Corporate Change, 11(3), pp. 529-555.
7. Eisenhardt, K. M. and Sull, D. N. (2001) Strategy as simple rules, Harvard Business Review, 79(1), pp. 107-116.
8. Final Pre-Trial Conference (2001) Rambus, Inc. v. Infineon Technologies AG, et al. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division, Civil Action No.3:00CV524, 15 March.
9. Foster, R. N. and Kaplan, S. (2001) Creative Destruction: Why Companies that are Built to Last Under Perform the Market (New York: Currency).
10. Gallini, N. T. (2002) The economics of patents: lessons from recent U.S. patent reforms, Journal of Economics Perspectives, 16(2), pp. 131-155.
11. Gilbert, R. J. and Newberry, D. M. G. (1982) Preemptive patenting and the persistence of monopoly, American Economic Review, 72(3), pp. 514-526.
12. Graham, J. (2001) Intergraph claims victory over Intel in patent dispute, The Technology Network/cmp, 2 May. Available at http:// www.siliconstrategies.com
13. Greenblatt, M., C. A. Harad v. Rambus, Inc., Geoffrey R. Tate, David Mooring, Gary G. Harmon, Mark Horowitz, Paul Michael Farmwald, Bruce S. Dunlevie, Edward H. Larsen and William Davidow (2001) United States District Court, Northern District of California, 22 October, Class Action, Case No. C-01-3131-BZ.
14. Grindley, P. C. and Teece, D. J. (1997) Managing intellectual capital: licensing in semiconductors and electronics, California Management Review, 39(2), pp. 8-41.
15. Hales, P. (2002) Intel infringed Intergraph patents in Itanic designs, The Inquirer, 11 October. Available at http://www.theinquirer.net
16. Hall, B. H. and Ziedonis, R. H. (2001) The patent paradox revisited: an empirical study of patenting in the U.S. semiconductor industry, 1979-1995, RAND Journal of Economics, 32(1), pp. 101-128.
17. Hamel, G. and Prahalad, C. K. (1993) Strategy as stretch and leverage, Harvard Business Review, 71(2), pp. 75-84.
18. Hayek, F. A. (1968/2002) Competition as a discovery procedure, Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, 5(3), pp. 9-23.
19. Hinthorne, T. (1996) Predatory capitalism, pragmatism, and legal positivism in the airlines industry, Strategic Management Journal, 17(4), pp. 251-270.
20. Inquirer, The (2003) Preliminary DRAM market share: worldwide, 1Q02-2Q03, 19 August. Available at http://www.inquirerinside.com/images/ articles
21. Iwata, E. (2002) Law firms tussle over Enron case, USA Today. Available at http://www.usatoday.com.
22. Jacobs, T. (2001) Ruling on Rambus, Motley Fool, 9 January. Available at http://www.fool.com/portfolios/rulebreaker/2001
23. Kahneman, D. and Lovallo, D. (1993) Timid choices and bold forecasts: a cognitive perspective on risk taking, Management Science, 39(1), pp. 17-31.
24. Kanellos, M. (2003) Court axes Infineon claim against Rambus, CNET NEWS, 29 January. Available at http://www.cnetnews.com
25. Kaplan, D. A. (1999) The Silicon Boys and Their Valley of Dreams (New York: William Morrow).
26. Khan, Z. and Sokoloff, K. L. (2001) The early development of intellectual property institutions in the United States, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 15(3), pp. 233-246.
27. Kirzner, I. M. (1997) Entrepreneurial discovery, Journal of Economic Literature, 35(1), pp. 60-85.
28. Lammers, D. (2000) Rambus, love, Rambus hate, Electrical Engineering Times (EE Times), 25 September. Available at http://eetimes.com/ story/OEG2000925S0011
29. Lee, T. D. and Evans, M. (2002) The charade: trying a patent case to all "three" juries, Texas Intellectual Property Law Journal, 8(1), pp. 2-36.
30. Lemley, M. (2002) Intellectual property rights and standard setting organizations, California Law Review, 90(6), pp. 1889-1980.
31. Lopez, J. (2000) Are investors chasing a storm with Rambus?, Morningstar, 23 June. Available at http://news.morningstar.com/ news/Wire/0,1230,2107,00.html
32. Mathews, J. A. (2002) Competitive advantages of the late-corner firm: a resource-based account of industrial catch-up strategies, Asian Pacific Journal of Management, 19(4), pp. 467-488.
33. Mazurek, J. (1999) Making Microchips: Policy, Globalization, and Economic Restructuring in the Semiconductor Industry (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).
34. McDaniel, D. D. (2002) Patent litigation on the rocket docket after Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc, Virginia Lawyer, 75(2), pp. 20-24.
35. Meurer, M. (2003) Controlling opportunistic and anti-competitive intellectual property litigation, Boston College Law Review, 44(2), pp. 509-544.
36. Von Mises, L. (1966) Human Action (Chicago, IL: Contemporary Books).
37. Morris, C. R. and Ferguson, C. H. (1993) How architecture wins technology wars, Harvard Business Review, 71(2), pp. 86-96.
38. Nadler, D. A. and Tushman, M. L. (1997) Competing by Design: The Power of Organizational Design (New York: Oxford University).
39. Pitcairn, J. (2001) Recommending Rambus? The Motley Fool, 27 November. Available at http://www.fool.com
40. Prahalad, C. K. and Bettis, R. A. (1986) The dominant logic: a new linkage between diversity and performance, Strategic Management Journal, 7, pp. 485-511.
41. Price Waterhouse Coopers (2000) Price Waterhouse Coopers LLP 2000 Securities Litigation Study. Pricewaterhouse Coopers. Available at http://www.10b5.com
42. Rambus (2000) Securities and Exchange Commission FORM 8-K: Annual Report (Washington, DC: Securities and Exchange Commission).
43. Rambus, Inc. v. Infineon Technologies, AG (2001) U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia: Civil Docket Case No. 00-CV-524.
44. Rivette, K. G. and Kline, D. (2000) Discovering new value in intellectual capital, Harvard Business Review, 78(1), pp. 54-66.
45. Ryan, T. (1999) Markman: where are we now? An update on developments and trends in claim construction. American Bar Association, Section of Intellectual Property Law, 1999 IPL Summer Conference, San Francisco, CA, 23-27 June.
46. Samoya, D. (2003) Strategic determinants of decisions not to settle patent litigation, Strategic Management Journal, 24, pp. 17-38.
47. Samuelson, P. and Scotchmer, S. (2002) The law and economics of reverse engineering, Yale Law Journal, 111(7), pp. 1575-1664.
48. Sarasvathy, S. V. (2001) Causation and effectuation: toward a theoretical shift from economic inevitability to entrepreneurial contingency, Academy of Management Review, 26(2), pp. 243-263.
49. Schilling, M. A. (1998) Technological lockout: an integrative model of the economic and strategic factors driving technology success and failure, Academy of Management Review, 23(2), pp. 267-284.
50. Schumpeter, J. A. (1975) Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy (New York: Harper).
51. Scotchmer, S. (1991) Standing on the shoulders of giants: cumulative research and the patent law, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(1), pp. 29-41.
52. Semiconductor technology license agreement between Intel CorporationRambus Inc. (1997) NASDAQ filing. Available at http:// www.rambusite.com/1997_agreement.htm
53. Shapiro, C. (2000) Navigating the patent thicket: cross-licenses, patent pools and standard-setting, in: A. Jaffe, J. Lerner & S. Stern (Eds) Innovation Policy and the Economy, pp. 119-150 (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).
54. Slater, S. F. (1993) Competing in high-velocity markets, Industrial Marketing Management, 22(4), pp. 255-263.
55. Stern, R. H. (2001a) More standardization skullduggery, IEEE Micro 21(4), pp. 12-15, 69.
56. Stern, R. H. (2001b) Another update on standardization skullduggery, IEEE Micro, 21(5), pp. 8-10.
57. Stoelhorst, J. W. (2002) Transition strategies for managing technological discontinuities: lessons from the history of the semiconductor industry, International Journal of Technology Management, 23(4), pp. 261-286.
58. Stratton, B. (1995) The U.S. semiconductor industry's wild ride, Quality Progress, 28(5), pp. 25-32.
59. Teece, D. J., Pisano, G. and Shuen, A. (1997) Dynamic capabilities and strategic management, Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), pp. 509-533.
60. Teel, B. (2003) Rambus: vampires or victims?, The Inquirer, 20 June. Available at http://www.theinquirer.net
61. Toiv, Y. v. Rambus Inc., and Geoff, Tate, et al. (2001) United States District Court Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, 16 November, Case No. C-01-3112-MMC.
62. Varchaver, N. (2001) A hot stock's dirty secret, Fortune, 9 July. Available at http://www.fortune.com
63. Victor, N. M. and Ausubel, J. H. (2002) DRAMs as model organisms for the study of technological evolution, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 69(3), pp. 243-262.
64. Wade, J. (1995) Dynamics of organizational communities and technological bandwagons: an empirical investigation of community evolution in the microprocessor market, Strategic Management Journal, 16(summer special issue), pp. 111-133.
65. Wade, W. (2001) Analysis: patent-suit loss batters Rambus' business model, EE Times, 11 May. Available at http://www.eetimes.com/ printableArticle
66. Ziedonis, R. H. (2001) Patent litigation in the U.S. semiconductor industry, 1973-2001. Conference on New Research on the Operation of the Patent System, US National Academies, Washington, DC.
67. Ziedonis, R. H. (2003) Patent litigation in the U.S. semiconductor industry, in: Board on Science, Technology and Economic Policy (Eds) Patents in the Knowledge Based Economy (Washington, DC: The National Academies Press).